Woman as friend

[yana]

Actually, what is the duty of every yogi? To be reborn once again to spread his teachings.

[Nick]

I have deliberately chosen to remain in samsara to pass on my genes to my children. But, and I stress but, one can have both as a genius and a father. Fate is not unpossible you know...

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Because I sure as hell don't.

And yes, woman remain enemy to conscious thought. I am her slave nowadays, NOT.

Mmhmm...

[yana]

I have deliberately chosen to remain in samsara to pass on my genes to my children. But, and I stress but, one can have both as a genius and a father. Fate is not unpossible you know...

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Because I sure as hell don't.

And yes, woman remain enemy to conscious thought. I am her slave nowadays, NOT.

Mmhmm...

Admitted defeat from my point of view.

[sue hindmarsh]

Yana,

You sound like a man with his 'short and curlies' held like puppet-strings by your girlfriend.

And yes, woman remain enemy to conscious thought. I am her slave nowadays, NOT.

You get a word in and then she's given them a hard yank and you're backstepping; then she lets up, and you gather up a bit of courage before she once again has you in tears.

"Woman is the enemy...eek!!...I mean man's best friend...ah...but I don't really believe...arh#fuc@!!...sweetness, please let go now...please...pretty please!"

I have deliberately chosen to remain in samsara to pass on my genes to my children. But, and I stress but, one can have both as a genius and a father. Fate is not unpossible you know...

So far your girlfriend has inspired you to become a 'father'; when, and in what way will she inspire you to become a "genius"?

[sue hindmarsh]

Hi Leyla,

You wrote:

Sue: Or is that just the "abstraction", and her real nature lies separate and distanced from that abstraction?

I do not hold absolutely that every individual female shares a mutually exclusive “real nature” to that of every individual male; Woman knows no bounds :). That’s what makes it an abstraction. For instance, since the image can have an equally influential effect on males (if not relying on them wholesale), Woman’s “real nature” is by no means exclusive to females.

Your point that both males and females are “equally” influenced by ‘Woman’ is surely the key to understanding Her.

For it logically follows that if “She” only held sway over females, it would mean that males wouldn’t, and couldn’t find females as spell-binding as they do. Therefore it really does take two to tango. For Woman to have any influence she needs both males and females to be operating within Her boundaries.

[Jamesh]

Therefore it really does take two to tango.

Yes it does, though the sex of the person matters little. What is required is simply a dynamic where both can give something to the other that the other wants. It's the old dominant/submissive routine, which is not related to sex, but how the ego was formed relative to that individuals genetic and experience environment.

Btw.. I think you and Leyla are both clinically insane. You both have too emotionally strong "wants" for humanity (read humanity as yourself, your ego).

Woman’s “real nature” is by no means exclusive to females.

As we all know. What I don't accept however is that full blown enlightenment is anything other than becoming feminine in its ultimate context. To remove the ego as a dominant player in producing thoughts, is to become truly feminine. Masculinity is simply egos that are more highly developed, more evolved, more directed, more specialised, more selfish. Femininity can be both the unddeveloped ego of a child and that of a person who has overcome self-centred egotism. You don't see this - you only see the necessary masculine path that can in the rarest of circumstances, lead to the latter. Enlightenment only has value if the ego tells you it has value, once achieved though then such value sytems disappear. Essentially the path to enlightenment is a path from ego-specialisation towards ego-generalisation.

To be absolutely feminine is to not have a selfish ego in any form. Thankfully though there are no absolutes when it comes to things like us humans.

[yana]

Sue: She lets me work in my own time. And I am already a certified genius through my IQ, and thinking. All life is sacrifice in some bizarre way.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

To remove the ego as a dominant player in producing thoughts, is to become truly feminine. Masculinity is simply egos that are more highly developed, more evolved, more directed, more specialised, more selfish. Femininity can be both the unddeveloped ego of a child and that of a person who has overcome self-centred egotism. You don't see this - you only see the necessary masculine path that can in the rarest of circumstances, lead to the latter. Enlightenment only has value if the ego tells you it has value, once achieved though then such value sytems disappear. Essentially the path to enlightenment is a path from ego-specialisation towards ego-generalisation.

To be absolutely feminine is to not have a selfish ego in any form.

James, you seem to be making it up as you go. What are you defending really?

Femininity is nothing but a product of masculinity. The underdeveloped ego of a young child is self-centered only because it has not grown out of its fantasy world yet: a masculine drive in itself. The upholding of the world as well its journey of exploration leading over its borders.

Any "highly developed", "evolved", "directed" ego will necessarily take down selfish concerns and deal with bigger pictures. What it can achieve is not femininity but unity which lies beyond such dualities.

But even if we'd remain in your line of thought: such feminine mindset would still form a great hindrance on the path, don't you think? Like awarding a heavy gold medal to an athlete before the race is actually run? So it doesn't matter if you want to equal "full blown enlightenment" with the feminine or not. It doesn't matter whatever dualistic concept you want to tag it with. What matters is the question if that "necessary masculine path", those "rarest of circumstances" is played out to its fullest potential.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It’s pretty hard to see as a tiny web image, but she is actually holding (what represents) her pussy on a lead.

Well, at least my avatar comes in bigger sizes. This is an article about how one guy staked out a river for two years just to snap that salmon.

[jupiviv]

Actually, what is the duty of every yogi? To be reborn once again to spread his teachings.

The true yogis would have a good laugh at these kinds of statements.

[jupiviv]

Hi Leyla,

You wrote:

Sue: Or is that just the "abstraction", and her real nature lies separate and distanced from that abstraction?

I do not hold absolutely that every individual female shares a mutually exclusive “real nature” to that of every individual male; Woman knows no bounds :). That’s what makes it an abstraction. For instance, since the image can have an equally influential effect on males (if not relying on them wholesale), Woman’s “real nature” is by no means exclusive to females.

Your point that both males and females are “equally” influenced by ‘Woman’ is surely the key to understanding Her.

For it logically follows that if “She” only held sway over females, it would mean that males wouldn’t, and couldn’t find females as spell-binding as they do. Therefore it really does take two to tango. For Woman to have any influence she needs both males and females to be operating within Her boundaries.

Sue Hindmarsh,

What exactly are you calling "Woman"? If you are referring to some kind of abstract concept that both males and females strive towards, then I would disagree that women are under its sway. Women are too unconscious to consciously strive towards any conceptual goal.

On the other hand, if you're talking about the desire to become nothing, or wholly unconscious(the state of absolute happiness,) then I agree that men and women possess this desire almost equally. Still, probably all men have the desire to be more conscious, and although even that is a very small amount, it places them incomparably above women. Women are already there, in a sense, so they are symbols of "Woman."

[Pye]

. . . the so-called unconsciousness surrounding Woman - and even that we shall refer to it as a unity of force, an abstract - is the existential impress of everyone's emergence into the world from that concrete vessel, that experiential prima, of going from the dark unconsciousness, ejected violently into the conscious light. We still turn and see Her - man and woman alike - (consciously or unconsciously) as dark beginnings; as thoughtless life; as a time when little need be perceived, when effort is yet unknown. We transfer this existential memory onto her - her 'thinkless' flesh, rather than our time within it, thoughtless. When we come back to her in abstraction or concretism, it is we who relax and slumber around our own thinkless memory. Or we are pissed at the thinkless memory of (r)ejection.

Embedded then not just in memory, but in culture is this notion that concrete woman is the centripetal center of thinklessness and it comes about strictly through this fleshly experience. She believes herself this force possessed of inexplicable pull, but in reality, she must work and worry endlessly to keep objects in her orbit. He believes himself inextricably pulled back to her, and all his transcendent projects are threatened with this entropy. But he, too, requires much artifice and dreaming beliefs before the bubble pops, and there is little more magic to be had in that one body. The uxorious male will burble in her collective defense by reminding others-of, and feeling himself, her "power" - and by virtue of this power alone, she shall be respected. But it is his experiential impress of his own powerlessness around her - his original need of her - that blames the object for the subject's somata.

He will grow older, but he will not grow any more independent - for unimaginative culture has set in stone this ambivalent motion away from and toward the first warm bed in which we slept without anxiety; were fed without eating; took breaths without breathing. He will look to all women in his future as hosts of use and moments of pure vegetative somata; and she will host her parasites with the strength of centripetal will. But they will break with her; we will always break with her for the autonomous breath; both men and women will break and return; break and return. She, too, must take her autonomous breaths before being pulled in again by her own centripetal memory.

He will stay a man-child in search of the mother-force of love, sustenance and shame, and she will be a girl-mother in search of her father's protection, his authority, perhaps even his distance. Each will reenact in childish unawareness the search for their caretakers; their protectors; their easier days when they ate without eating; took a breath without breathing; and can find welcomed place again for all of the business of their body and fluids in life. It is the substance of the sage's dream of oneness - it is the currency of all of human commerce - our first experiences forming, and forming the nature of all experiences to come. It is fleshly through and through. There is no mind-world. It is all the expression of flesh. Everyone knows this who has ever made sense.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But they will break with her; we will always break with her for the autonomous breath; both men and women will break and return; break and return. She, too, must take her autonomous breaths before being pulled in again by her own centripetal memory.

One could describe Woman as some abstract, existential, "cosmic" in scope prima but by defining her that way, one might move away from a meaningful comparison. What is the masculine, your "he", compared to such grand concept? The equation is not solved by introducing new dimensions, new players and god-like culture-speak entities. It would only move to another arena altogether, one that is certainly not of the "flesh" anymore, not of our day-to-day, cultural, referential, abstract, "real" experiencing.

If we'd take this centripetal force you describe into consideration I'd see the feminine, the female even as gender, as perhaps its natural ally or vessel, like an Eve being approached by the Snake. The Snake might draw us all in through our mortality but to throw it into cahoots with the feminine, addressing them as one, sounds to me a typical, ehmm, feminine tendency to include herself, project herself onto things larger than her, being it the masculine or the undefinable itself.

All beginning will experience seduction by its very ending, which already was the case from the start.

[Steven Coyle]

I think all it takes with a woman (man's shadow) is the aqua question: "And there's the answer."

bert's collacon.

(enough aqua and one builds their own ethernet)

[Steven Coyle]

Keeping it to the index and point it out and there's the answer (tele-vision).

[jupiviv]

the sage's dream of oneness

The sage does not have dreams of oneness. He is like a man lying with his head towards the sky, and duality and non-duality are clouds in the sky for him. He would not "dream" of oneness any more than that man would dream about the shape of the clouds in the sky.

[Leyla Shen]

Get thee to a nunnery, wench!

[Leyla Shen]

Btw.. I think you and Leyla are both clinically insane.

Oh, that's it, James. Now I'm DEFINITELY not your friend - and, next time a matter of such concern might arise, just by the way, I'll be sure to think of you as the benchmark for clinical sanity.....

;)

[Steven Coyle]

I think it's just a space invader.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hahahah! The top row indeed. Yours is more like the blue saucer.

[divine focus]

It is the substance of the sage's dream of oneness - it is the currency of all of human commerce - our first experiences forming, and forming the nature of all experiences to come. It is fleshly through and through. There is no mind-world. It is all the expression of flesh. Everyone knows this who has ever made sense.

I get the feeling physical reality is something new. Maybe something waaay old that 'people' or 'beings' grew away from and stopped paying attention to. Definitely new in terms of exploration.